DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The information disclosure statements filed on 8/29/2024 and 12/5/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is objected to because it contains more than 150 words (196 words).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No.12,112,577 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they essentially recite the same limitation.
Claim 1 is rejected in view of claim 1 of the ‘577 patent in that the both recite:
Claim 1 of the application
Claim 1 of the ‘577 patent
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one of at least one processor, passenger information associated with an airline travel carrier that is printed on an originating hardcopy bag tag or a printed instrument comprising at least a portion of the passenger information on the originating hardcopy bag tag that is currently garbage, wherein the originating hardcopy bag tag is issued for a luggage item of a passenger; creating, by at least one of the at least one processor, a digital passenger information (DPI) data record linked to the airline travel carrier using the received passenger information, wherein the DPI data record comprises an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number, a passenger name record (PNR) number, an airline code, an airline name, a name of the passenger, or any combination thereof; accessing, by at least one of the at least one processor, passenger return flight information from a computer system associated with the airline travel carrier, based on the DPI data record to obtain the passenger return flight information needed to process each luggage item in a volume of luggage items within a time-constrained regulated check-in window; and printing, by a printing device, a return leg travel IATA bag tag for a return flight associated with the passenger return flight information.
1. A method comprising:
a) obtaining, by at least one of at least one processor, image data representative of at least one image of printed passenger information associated with an airline travel carrier on an originating hardcopy bag tag or a printed instrument comprising at least a portion of the printed passenger information on the originating hardcopy bag tag to create a digital passenger information (DPI) data record linked to the airline travel carrier, wherein the originating hardcopy bag tag is issued for a luggage item of a passenger, and wherein the DPI data record comprises an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number, a passenger name record (PNR) number, an airline code, an airline name, a name of the passenger, or any combination thereof; b) accessing, by at least one of the at least one processor, passenger return flight information from a computer system associated with the airline travel carrier, based on the DPI data record; and c) printing, by a printing device, a return leg travel IATA bag tag for a return flight associated with the passenger return flight information.
As can be seen, though the claimed languages are not identical, it would have been obvious that claim 1 of the ‘577 patent recites all essential limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Thus, the patent protections have been granted to earlier filed patent application.
Claim 2 is rejected in view of claim 2 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 3 is rejected in view of claim 3 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 4 is rejected in view of claim 5 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 5 is rejected in view of claim 8 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 6 is rejected in view of claims 1, 10 and 11 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 7 is rejected in view of claims 1 and 13 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 8 is rejected in view of claims 2 and 14 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 9 is rejected in view of claims 3 and 15 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 10 is rejected in view of claims 5 and 16 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 11 is rejected in view of claims 8 and 18 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 12 is rejected in view of claims 1 and 10-11 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 13 is rejected in view of claims 1 and 13 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 14 is rejected in view of claims 2 and 14 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 15 is rejected in view of claim 3 and 15 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 16 is rejected in view of claim 7 and 17 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 17 is rejected in view of claims 8 and 18 of the ‘577 patent.
Claim 18 is rejected in view of claims 11 and 22 of the ‘577 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2396. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-5:00 PM M-Th..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876